PieFedAccessible_irl (Art by Igdoods)
ThefuzzyFurryComradehttps://pawb.social/pictrs/image/2631acbd-d152-47c8-960f-134e7cde11c5.png
Source (Bluesky)
110 Comments
Comments from other communities
Devils advocate here.
There's open source services that offers AI gen for free, as long as you have an internet connection.
So a potato phone could be used and that's all that's required.
-# Doesn't make it more accessible than actual pen and paper but the gap is not that big either
Little8Lostsomewhere i should have a collection of "borrowed" ikea pencils
ValiantDustI always bring them back when they have reached half the original length.
It makes it more accessible to the lazy and talentless.
Boomer Humor DoomergodAs someone with the fine motor control of someone made of all elbows, who couldn’t hope to ever draw anything and who leaves that up to people with talent and work ethic for money, all of the cool things in my head that die there because they’re better in my imagination than I could ever express through words or art.
I feel seen.
Give digital art programs a try. There's plenty of free alternatives to the big subscription model vultures out there, there's GIMP for image editing, Krita for drawing, Blender for 3D, DaVinci Resolve for video editing, Audacity and Pro Tools Free for sound recording and editing, you can even make modular synths using VCV Rack. And if you like rum and eye patches theres versions of the big players out there too.
I am absolutely shit at drawing, but professionally I make 3d animations, having drawing skills helps, but it's not necessary to learn any one of these.
I am even more terrible at those than I am with physical media.
Everyone is terrible when they start. You can get better if you practice over time.
You might not ever draw the next big masterpiece, but if you practice you will get better.
All it takes is 15-30 minutes a day.
the expression or application of human creative skill and imagination, typically in a visual form such as painting or sculpture, producing works to be appreciated primarily for their beauty or emotional power.
Creative skill and imagination. It is inherent to art.
Even the shittiest executed art is art. Your perception of art is skewed by the commodification of it through capitalist societies. I sincerely implore you to take up any kind of art that does not require AI if you're truly interested in expressing yourself.
Have you considered collage? You just need some mod podge, a few foam brushes, and magazines/random print material. There’s still lots of room for skill and exploration, but there’s not a technical barrier to entry.
It really is just persistence and accepting a certain amount of "I'm so bad at art" for eternity. Just make something, draw, paint or whatever. Look for things that motivate you to make stuff and learn to do it anyway, sucking is the first step to being kinda good at something.
Isn’t creating art despite those obstacles meaningful though? Art is always going to be an imperfect copy of what is in our head and absolutely nothing about generative AI can possibly change that. But artists have intent and all their experience in every line they make - that’s part of the joy and tragedy of it and what makes it so human.
Yes.
In the same way that some people are satisfied with fast food, AI folks are satisfied with fast art - despite that they may be poisoning themselves.
There is literally no fucking such thing as talent.
Talent is just the excuse of the ignorant and stupid to downplay training and hard work.
Generative ai tho DOES make art more accessiable to people with physical disablities, people who already spend their time learning and training in other skill sets.
Such as poor coders being able to make simple art for their project. No artist would be hired reguardless and it can provide a reasonable and useful method of obtaining art.
The current glut of companies running ai, training them and stealing copyrighted work should all burn in hell. Go bankrupt and have their ceos sent to jail for enabling and profiting off theft.
But lets be angry at the right thing here. Generative ai is a tool, asshole people stealing is the problem.
Sorry the concept of "talent" really just sends me.
This is fine🔥🐶☕🔥What a crock of shit. You clearly haven't lived with talented people. I've had roommates that I got to observe their daily habits and while they did work and practice, much of their skill came from how their brains and muscles were wired. Talent is very real. To assume every accomplishment that out shines another is simply a product of greater training and effort is an excuse of the ignorant.
I'd also suspect there are things that may not be "learnable" -- if you don't have great spatial perception or colour vision, that might not really be a skill than can be practiced.
It doesn't mean you can't do art either. Art is not only "faithful representations of reality". Heck, that is probably the most boring and useless definition of art one could think of.
Edit: nevermind, just read another comment equating art's value to its financial success. Now, that is an even more boring definition of art.
People have aptitudes. The idea that a you could put 100 people in a room with the best teacher, and they could all become excellent artists, is hopeful but naive. But yes, even with talent a person has to work hard and practice. The word "talent" implies that the person worked hard to develop the skill. I agree we shouldn't downplay the amount of work that goes into specializing, but let's not pretend that means there's no such thing as talent. Some people have a knack for things that others don't, I've seen this firsthand on so many occasions. These knacks are what can be turned into talents.
So let's not downplay a person's natural aptitude by saying "well you just worked super hard, anybody can do that."
In my work place we hired an intern who was pivoting careers and wanted to learn a new skill. The company was doing well, so we kept her on so long as she was trying. We patiently worked with her for years, but the skill NEVER clicked. She came from a robust background, so she was clearly capable, but we eventually figured out that she didn't have the talent for it. She eventually decided that career wasn't for her and left for another company - and in her new position she picked up on the different and required skill super quick. Our brains are elastic, sure, but they're also hardwired in all different ways.
VerbFlowDisabled people can make great art. They can also hire someone else to help them; people who work succeed more together than apart.
I also think that having someone make a nice image is not worth the sheer amount of electrical energy and water cooling needed to power the datacenters.
People who are "talented" might start out at a better point in a field than others but they'll hit a wall where they have to actually put in work to go further, that comes all at once instead of in small steps.
I'm with you on all of your points actually (it's photography all again), but you did post it in /fuck_ai 😁
I can't visualize things in my head so generative ai can help me "see" my thoughts in a way i couldn't otherwise. Are there artists with aphantasia? I'm sure, and kudos to them. I took several art classes and could never really do well unless i was trying to recreate someone else's work.
But absolutely agree with your point. I would love for the future to have art licensed for genAI use so artists get their royalties and i can use it. I don't like all the theft in current LLMs so don't use them anymore
One of the animators behind The Little Mermaid had aphantasia.
There’s also experimenting with more abstract forms - playing with color and shape. Art doesn’t have to be a picture of something.
I don't feel like that's actually an argument against it. Why would everyone need to learn to draw? Why if I need some random background asset or prop should I spend months or years learning to do something I don't enjoy? The alternative is to pay an artist, but in many cases it literally doesn't make sense to waste that kind of money on a trivial thing. It can have its uses.
should I spend months or years learning to do something I don't enjoy?
Okay. If you don't even like drawing, why should I care to see it, then?
Is this like when casual acquaintances who don't like each other pretend to make weekend plans they both know they're going to cancel if either one of them ever brings it up again?
jagged_circleThis post isn't accessible. Dont post pictures of text without transcribing it
Yeah, but how much did you cost?
Fun fact two days ago I got a price tag tattoo on my hip for $646,990.37, so at least that much
Let me guess, bill for hip surgery in US?
Economic cost of mtf lower surgery in the US. It also includes electrolysis, travel, and housing for surgery related stuff. That said almost all of it is just surgery and hospital bills charged to insurance. I only have paid about $35k and they want another $4k out of me but I'm fighting it. Gearing up for a legal battle soon yay
AI hallucinations are the modern equivalent to clip art from the 90's, change my mind.
- Clip art from the 90's was made with passion
- It didn't threaten the environment as much
- There wasn't any attempt to outdo real artists
- You don't have it as a business model
- There isn't an uproar about it
- Nothing was stolen to make the clip art
My business is 90% comic sans and clip art
The last 10% is paint. Graphic arts is my passion
✨behold passion✨ https://lemmy.world/pictrs/image/7a6c6fab-977a-40da-8d3f-87d97211bd52.png
everything threatens the environment more nowadays
clip art artists constantly threatened the lives of people who called them fake artists.
there were clip art business!!
everyone hated it then, too
the gaping hole in the soul of every artist who got paid to make clip art would disagree with that last one.
I sometimes try using Ai to make a simple Clipart type image. Getting something decent only comes with a stroke of luck. Most of the time it is absolutely infuriating.
Im forced to work on it at work. Every time I do, the scene from Deathclok where they record sound to water plays in my head.
southsamuraiAight, here's the thing.
All art is, at its base, about translating a person's inner concept into an external form. Sculpture, painting, poetry, dance, whatever.
To do any art form, there is a barrier to entry. If you want to be a dancer, some part of your body must be mobile, right? Even if it's just your eyeballs, dance by definition is about the human body moving.
But, what if you can't move your body? Is that, and should that be, a barrier? Why can't a person get an exoskeleton device that they can then program to either dance for them, or to respond to their thoughts so they can dance via the gear? Well, in that case the technology isn't here yet, but pretend it was.
Obviously, it wouldn't be the same as someone that's trained and dedicated to dancing, but is it lesser? It still fulfills the self expression via movement.
That can be applied to damn near every form of art. I can't actually think of any that it doesn't apply to at least in part.
There is a difference between a human sitting down (or lying or standing) to write a book and just telling a computer to generate a book. But it doesn't completely invalidate using a computer to generate fictional text. The key in that form is the degree of input and the effort involved. A writer asking an llm for a paragraph about a kid walking down the street when they're blocked isn't the same thing as telling it to write the entire book. There's degrees of use that are valid tools that don't remove the human aspect of the art form.
Take it to visual arts. A person can see things in their head that they may never develop the skill to see executed. They may not be physically capable of moving a brush on canvas, or pen on paper. A painter of incredible skill may be an utter dunce at sculpture, but still have vision and concepts worth being created.
The use of a generative model as a tool is not inherently bad. It's no worse than setting up software to 3d print a sculpture.
The problem comes in when the ai itself is made by, and operated for the benefit of corporate entities, and/or when attribution isn't built in. Attribution matters; a painting made by Monet is different from a painting that looks like Monet could have done it, but it was made by southsamurai. If I paint something that looks like a Monet, that's great! If I paint it and pretend it was made by Monet, that's bullshit.
A "painting" by a piece of software that's indelibly attributed as generated that way isn't a big deal. It comes back to the eye of the beholder in the same way that digital art is when compared to "analog" art via paints and pencils. It only really matters when someone is bullshitting about how they achieved the final results.
Is ai art less impressive? Hell yes, and it's pretty obvious that it isn't the same thing as someone honing their craft over years and decades. An image generated by a piece of software with only the input prompts being human generated is not the same as someone building the image with their hands via paint/touchpad/mouse/whatever.
This is still different from the matter of using ai instead of paying a human to do the work, which is more complicated than people think it is.
But, in terms of an individual having access to tools that allow them to get things inside their head out of their head where it can be seen, it has its place. It just needs to be very clear that that's the tool used.
And yeah, I know this is c/fuckai, and I'm arguing that ai has its place as a tool of self expression, and that's not going to be universally satisfying here. But I maintain that the problem with ai art isn't in the fact that it's ai art, it's the framework behind that that makes it a threat to actual humans.
In a world where artists can choose to create art for their own satisfaction without having to worry about eating and having a roof over their heads, ai art would be a lot less of a threat.
This "art" costs far more environmentally than any other. It uses mass amounts of electricity and water. It's nothing like, say, eating steak instead of salad, or driving a pickup truck to work. The "miracle" of AI has to come from somewhere, after all.
Sure, but so does everything. Pigments have to be mined or synthesized. Paper comes from cut down trees. Brushes are either synthesized or from natural hairs. Ink is a vat of survival chemicals.
Electricity by itself is just one resource. You could argue that by centralizing the resource like that, you can easier reduce environmental impacts overall via more sustainable, less damaging energy production.
Ai isn't a miracle, any more than air conditioning is, or refrigerators, or Christmas lights, or even just a stove. It's a tool.
Again, I'm not trying to change anyone's mind here. It's just for the enjoyment of babbling about the subject, maybe having a nice conversation along the way. I have very definite opinions about the way generative models are being used, the impacts it's having, but a lot of the time that's not really interesting because pretty much everyone hates the slop factor.
But that's, to me, like objecting to shovel because someone is using it to dig under your house. Misuse of a thing isn't the same as the thing itself
db0With the Ai Horde you just need a browser on a potato.
mojofrododojoand tons of power and cooling somewhere.
stop acting like the compute comes from nowhere lol
The artist used stolen materials to make art. The AI "artist" used stolen materials to make "art".
One makes money, one doesn't . The market has spoken. Actual artists will be able to continue on not make much money doing what they love and that is the meta of their chosen path. If you are an artist and you feel your job is threatened by AI, make better art or join the club of people who had their jobs taken by technology; you will have company. We still have cobblers, blacksmiths, and woodworkers; artists should take note of their revised business models.
This is very confusing. AI also isn't technological progress, just like how leaded gasoline and Flexplay wasn't technological progress.
It is a technology that makes a skilled process easier than it has ever been.
Is a calculator not technological progress?
Is a CNC machine not technological progress?
There is no valid argument that AI image generation is not a form of technological progress. What took an artist a half hour or a day takes an image generator minutes.
Ok, we need to redefine what art is. Artist is. I'm so lost..
I have a pretty quick ~$500 phone (snapdragon 8 gen 3) and tried this local AI app once (just something on fdroid, you could probably find it) but the experience was pretty terrible. Like a minute per image on the small local models from 2022. I'm sure you could do better, but my conclusion is that an $800 phone is as useful as a $60 phone for generative ai because you're going to have to use some remote service anyways.
A minute per image, on a pocket computer, sounds like Marty McFly Jr. making a three-second pizza and going "C'mon, c'mon!'
Could not agree more. I don’t do anything with AI but that is kind of amazing hahaha
I wish we could start arguing about the ethics of compensation for training data and requiring a concrete way to both protect opt-out, as well as compensate those who contribute, rather than argue about a product that absolutely does have a user base (as is continually proven). I don't think there's a win against the demand, but you can win the ethics battle and force better regulations.
I agree with the points about ethics and compensation, however.
So a couple of things. One, he's right and I agree with him on his first point. There is no such thing as a "ai artist" or a prompt director or whatever you'd like to call it. The machine is not complex enough in use to need a specialized person like that, and I wouldn't say they were an artist even if it were. Second, I literally follow artists who use ai just for finishing details on their work, sometimes it's as simple as fur renders that they don't want to add by hand so they involve an ai renderer to apply the finishing layer, and these are artists I've been following since before ai "art" (image generation) existed. So he's just straight up wrong about there not being a single real artist using ai. It's a tool, like any other. You can have your negative opinion on it, but it's honestly useless to be so hostile to something just because it scares you and you don't understand it, so I'm not going to watch the video past that.
If current models never changed again - none of what's happening would "die." We already have programs that can turn any image you provide into any image you describe, even if you provide solid noise.
What people do with that tool can be trivial... or it can take immense effort and thought. I don't understand how an iterative process lasting days could be anything but art. Objecting to where the tools came from can't change that.
I don't think there's really a "demand" per se. It seems to me like the vast vast majority of AI "art" and text is spam. Many of these users seem to be using cheap/free versions of whatever LLM or image generators.
OpenAI is by far the most popular, but also said that even on the most expensive $200/month plan, they are losing money.
Is this "demand" going to exist if and when they inevitably raise the price?
If and when Facebook makes changes to how they monetize posts, will the shrimp Jesus spammers move on to the next scheme?
Will the businesses using AI for customer service and data entry keep using it if it costs more than using human employees?
This whole "industry" is teetering on a knifes edge.
That viewpoint is extremely short sighted. You're missing the field for the trees. Open source models that people run on their local hardware with open weights absolutely do exist and function well. As an example of demand, I personally have a DnD group that uses it for token generation. It gives a far deeper sense of immersion for our custom campaigns where we would otherwise not be able to afford to commission custom imagery, and yes these are generated locally on an m1 mac mini. People viewing it as a replacement for custom commissioned art are, at least with its current and foreseeable capabilities, incorrect in their assumption. It's merely an augmentation and tool that fills niche low-cost low-"risk" voids. I assure you, for example, that there is absolutely some kid out there who has generated an image of either their imaginary friend or custom super hero. This has likely brought them great joy, especially if they're unable to otherwise embody their idea due to lack of skill or funding. You have to look at the tool from all angles. A car, in isolation, is a multi-ton inheritia machine capable of unspeakable atrocities, yet we cohabitate with them every single day because we understand life is complex, there are benefits to doing so, and a single view of a tool does not reflect it's reality.
I don't think "some kid" experiencing "great joy" at AI slop is worth the spam from scammers and environmental impacts.
Also, the majority of people using AI are not running it locally. If people were running it locally, on low power to preserve the environment, with content that artists consented to have trained, to use exclusively for non-commercial use, I wouldn't have a problem with it.
But that isn't reality.
Cars are dangerous, that's why they can only be used by licensed operators (both for safety and environmental impact), are heavily regulated, and still have problems coming from overreliance that would have been easier to solve before we built infrastructure around them.
It's why we've seen things like walkable cities and public transit come back as popular ideas.
I think you're aiming for perfect over better, and honestly I don't think you're going to make much headway in that effort, especially when you're disregarding the joy of children but you do you.
Local models already won.
I keep seeing this kind of argument, and I understand, but I disagree.
The comparison isn't between using an ai service and doing it yourself, but rather between using an ai service and commissioning an actual artist. I can afford $20/mo for infinite mediocrity. I cannot afford $20/image (or more depending on the artist).
Of course, there is a flaw in my argument, in that I was assuming that the techbro was being honest. People aggressively pushing dalle or midjourney or whatever aren't interested in "making art accessible". They hate art and artists, and want to force creative types to be miserable doing jobs they hate. I have to remind myself that this is the kind of person that the comic is complaining about.
What does that phrase even mean? Asking something else to make something for you is not artistic, so it can't be that. People who commission other humans to make things aren't suddenly artists. If they literally just mean consumption of images, it's not as if web searching for images has been difficult for the last couple decades at this point. If you don't care about art at all and just want content, there are lifetimes of things you could look for readily available to indulge. Just start typing and away you go! Literally the only thing that has changed is that now you are accelerating dead internet theory and removing human interaction from what you consume. Of course, if you don't care about art that is a moot point, since human self-expression and communication never meant anything to you in the first place.
At best, the phrase should be specialized, on demand consumption of niche content is more accessible, not art.
Artists understand that art is primarily about self-expression. Non-artists often instead think art is about producing nice pictures. When all nice pictures come with self-expression baked in, the two groups seem to be on the same page, but when a computer makes nice pictures that are completely devoid of self-expression, we find out they're not on the same page at all.
Right, people never make art just for money. The animation outsourcing industry loves when you can tell who drew each frame.
That's the thing about human-made art: even when it's just cranked out for a job, there's still an element of self-expression to it just from it having been made using skills honed through self-expression.
Yet absolutely none of that when someone spends five hours editing text to match the image in their head.
Correct
How.
I wholeheartedly agree with you, OOP is mocking the supposed barriers to art that AI users will bring up as an excuse to use AI.
i think they just want it to look impressive without the big effort to learn how to make it look impressive yourself. that kind of accessibility.
thats part of the reason why i doodle around with ai, but you can definetly make it into self expression if you know how to express yourself.
tbh, as someone not terribly skilled with pencil drawing, this is how it feels like when i make a mistake but end up liking it. i don't always have an exact clear picture of what i want to make either.
But it's your "mistake" (remember, we don't make those), not something implanted into your head from the outside.
i see your point, though you can technically iron out every detail if you are proficient enough at prompting it, and have a complete picture in your mind.
No, sorry, you don't see my point. You're presented by AI with an image that isn't yours and it overwrites the one that was in your head because it's vaguely similar. It's killing your own imagination in favour of an inferior "version". The one with your "mistake" is yours only, it came from your head and nowhere else and it might lead to something so much better than anything by an AI that you settle for because it's "good enough".
I don't think my minds eye is that clear.
Doesn't matter. That's the first panel where the artist develops the image in their mind step by step. Not to mention there are great artists who have no mind's eye at all (aphantasia).
As much as i hate AI generated art, this is a shit argument. You can run an AI on your phone (which you would have anyway) without a subscription. You can also doodle on your phone for free.
Yeah I feel it would be better if they they have shown the sheer cost of making these models and their upkeep instead.
It's perfectly fine price to use in cancer treatment. But when they mention AI girlfriends I want to scream.
It's not even the cost of training the AI. A better argument is that using AI for art is pure fucking laziness in 99.9% of cases.
Also, why have an AI waifu when you can have a real one and touch grass at the same time?
Also if you're not an idiot you can buy a workable smart phone for 100$ if you want
why are you assuming that someone who wants to make art would have a phone anyway? some people are poor
My friend, phones can be very cheap and accessable and most has one. Like one of the comments said below said, you can find a cheap phone for under 100 dollars.
keep in mind that 40% of the global population doesn't own a smartphone.
that's billions of people that you're leaving out of your analysis which doesn't sound very fair to them. you don't understand poverty because you're assuming your living conditions will be the same as theirs.
Do i have to consider every person alive whenever i make a comment? of course, people in poverty will have different ways of doing things and won't be able to afford things you and I can. I thought this is a given, no?
you have to consider whether the points you make reflect the reality of billions of people on earth. i don't know what's so hard about it
You would only need to consider that if it would be applicable to a reason view on the statement being made.
In a topic about AI and smart phones considering every single toddler, child and geriatric for example doesn't make sense. Considering every single people entirely uninterested in tech would be unreasonable.
So no, no one would find it reasonable that you would need to consider billions of people in a topic that only really makes sense to a fraction of a fraction.
Smart phones are so cheap and plentiful that even most homeless people can afford them.
It's actually a really safe bet that people have phones even if they have nothing else. You would be right more often then not.
Lol right, because there are no free AI art services and you need a dedicated iPhone to do AI art. OP forgot to add $400 for a leather upholstered "gaming chair".
Also this looks like a meme made on a $180 drawing tablet.
If what you need is a constant stream of ever-changing imagery that you don’t glance at for more than a second or two before moving on, I’m sure AI is great for that. So are jangling keys and those slime ASMR videos. But if that’s what you want from viewing or making art, you are an alien to me.
You can also get deep, deep into whateverthefuck you're into. Is your waifu no longer popular? Well, now anyone can be served a few pieces per day, without demanding a constant deluge of novelty. Is your favorite thing so niche it doesn't have a tag? Well, endless similar examples are dead easy, and endless distinct examples are not much harder.
I use it for illustrations of characters, items, and locations for my homebrew TTRPG campaign. That's basically exactly what happens: party looks at it once, gets a general idea, and usually never looks at it again. Without AI, I just wouldn't have the illustrations; I'm not commissioning art that's going to get looked at once.
I wouldn't call that "art", in any real sense. They're visual aids, not aesthetic masterpieces.
Well, this situation has existed for a long time. You can buy extant asset packs, no commission necessary. They’re not too expensive, either. As you noted they are just visual aids. Actually I happen to have a supermassive amount laying around from random humble bundles over the years, that were pack-ins with other items I wanted
No judgement or anything, it’s just far from an “AI or nothing” situation
I'm very particular, and my setting is not thematically typical. AI gives me the power to have a decent degree of control over the content when it's difficult, if not impossible, to find media that's appropriate for a particular character or scene.
It sounds more like AI has disempowered you to exercise your creativity tbh
I draw when I want to draw, paint when I want to paint, narrate when I want to narrate. I design, print, and paint minis and settings, I make props and maps and documents. When it comes to semi-important limited-use side characters, sometimes 5 minutes describing them to an AI is sufficient effort for the demands of the task.
Yeah so to be clear, listing a bunch of pursuits where creativity may thrive doesn’t really illustrate your passion for the craft. It actually makes your interest in art sound passing and sterile. My point is not that you have been banned from picking up a paintbrush, but that your creative process has been damaged.
And look, what we actually already have from you is an example of that damaged creativity and resourcefulness; you are proclaiming that a problem that has been solved for decades is “impossible” without AI. You’re also flitting back and forth seamlessly between these images being “glanced at for one second, less than art” and “semi important, needing to serve a particular taste” depending on whatever you think serves your point more in the moment. It doesn’t sound like you had any thought or justification behind it before today. Just something you were doing because it’s easy and you felt the need to come defend it today when you saw the concept taking some heat.
Which is all fine. You’d be better off just owning it rather than trying to construct some goldilocks zone of importance where it’s justified
See also Spiderweb Software's "Failing To Fail" talk: solo dev used the same assets in every game, and a constant complaint in the forums was that the graphics sucked. So once his sales were decent, he hired an artist to overhaul everything. The next game had the same complaints. He celebrated. Now he knew he could ignore that shit.
I can't speak for your party, but if I were in your campaign, I would vastly prefer silly doodles over some disposable AI image.
My party very much enjoys the visual aids I provide. They are one part of a toolbox of resources that contribute to the immersive quality of my campaign.
What someone practiced can do with nothing, and what a newbie can do with nothing, drastically differ.
These dipshits are trying to communicate that this tech offers half-decent results. Immediately. For no effort. They could surely do better, themselves... if they spent an entire year trying. Opportunity be damned, most people just don't want to. Developing a skill is a process that sucks. Vanishingly few people learn to paint portraits, and code games, and play piano. But any idiot can now use a program to do a half-assed job of all three.
Experienced artists, programmers, and musicians will recognize the flaws. They can declare the results useless slop. But it's being generated by people who would do even worse without it.
Source (Mastodon)
Anyone can cook too, but I bet you'd rather have a generic regular meal than something burnt to a crisp.
That's the vibe the napkin gives.
No, I would rather get a range of meals between bad and amazing that people put effort into making rather then the same canned mediocrity of a machine.
Go burn some eggs to a char, eat that, and say it's better than a microwave frozen dinner.
Not everyone is excellent at everything. That's why there's specializations.
Some people like to draw, but many just like to see, much like how everyone eats but not necessarily everyone likes to cook. Not everyone likes making art.
I love cooking, and constantly make complex plates.
My wife? It's extremely stressful for her, and if there was a machine that could just make decent dishes for her when I can't cook, I'd rather her use that (and I bet she would too).
The other thing you're confusing is hobby vs need/want.
If I need/want a basic generic wallpaper for some reason, I'm not going to be able to make it, nor do I want to learn to make it, or have time to make it - I already have other things to do / that I like to do instead, like coding or cooking or just plain old work. My wife is actually a talented artist, but I wouldn't force her to make generic thing she has no interest in making either. For these cases, I spin up the local open source diffusion model (because I'm definitely not paying a company for it, let alone an AI one) and make it in seconds because it's not something I need to be perfect or with soul etc. Just like we don't all need to eat 5 star Michelin meals every day (or can).
Even she uses it to look at different styles or get ideas, or even to make something quickly, because it's better for her than to spend hours making it. And since she actually studied art, she can actually use it better than I, because she knows all the technical art jargon for using in the prompt.
I get that you love art, but just to put you in perspective, you're acting no different than a hardcore Christian trying to convert an atheist. Sometimes people are okay with a frozen microwave dinner.
That's nice.
Meanwhile, the average person only sees results. They do not seem to share your fundamental aversion to how a JPG was made. They didn't experience whatever grand philosophical journey produced it. It doesn't need to be artisanal grass-fed human Art.™ It either provokes an emotional response, or not.
If AI slop is a text in the absence of subtext, it is still a text. Comes with death-of-the-author built in. And people can still say something with works they did not make themselves... as you're doing right now.
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/19368623.2024.2368040
Are you seriously suggesting that sharing something made by somebody else is the same as it being made by nobody at all?
I'm suggesting people can communicate with images regardless of who made them. What they're communicating does not have to resemble what an artist originally intended. Surprised Pikachu face.
You could pick ten nature shots out of some catalog, and tell a story just by arranging them in a certain order. If you later found out one image was generated - how would that change your story?
Can you imagine how funny it would be, if that 'I don't want your slop' image turned out to be made in Midjourney? Not one pixel would change, but half the people celebrating it would declare it never meant anything to them. How could it? It's not art. Anymore.
Meanwhile, Duchamp put a toilet in a museum. He didn't make it. He just signed it.
I would never be able to write that well
But eh, people with disabilities don't exist we shouldn't try to find solutions for them
Here is a video of a disabled artist drawing with their mouth:
https://www.instagram.com/g.darkins/p/DCPqpuihYCz/?img_index=1
Final Result:
Please do not insult disabled artists like that.
Another thread:
Forgot the
Part
Society thinks everyone is able-bodied. Until a machine is made so I can draw directly with my mind, creating art is a pipe dream. I need something that doesn't require any type of force, so no pencils, pens, mice, etc. I always associate the word "accessible" with disabled people so this meme was funny to me.
My friend, how did you make this comment without any type of force? is it a speech to text thing? If so, it might be possible for you to do art of some kind.
😮💨 Sorry but I am not looking for suggestions that I have to explain why I'm too disabled for it to work. Speech to text will not work.
I mean, pen plotters allow you to draw anything even if you can only type and they are definitely used to make some beautiful art. And if you can't afford that, you can probably create algorithmic art on the device you are reading this comment from!
Thanks for the suggestion, but after looking into this it would not work out for my disabilities.
Here is a video of a disabled artist drawing with their mouth:
https://www.instagram.com/g.darkins/p/DCPqpuihYCz/?img_index=1
Final Result:
Please do not insult disabled artists like that.
Another thread:
I am going to try to say this as polite as possible. You should never compare people's disabilities, especially in an attempt to invalidate them. No one has insulted disabled artists, however you are being offensive. I see you have been led astray by the second person, but this is just ... off-putting. Yes there are people in wheelchairs who can work, and those who can't. The first group does not make the second group lazy. Some disabled people will have certain activities they cannot do and no amount of individual practice/hard work/effort will change it. Being a member of a group does not exclude them from being offensive (women can be misogynists, etc.). The second person is literally using their status as a disabled person to put down other disabled people, I mean wtf.
You could run it on your own PC instead
Then instead of a subscription, you're paying for a gpu and power. Not everyone has the money for a computer, but pretty much anyone can afford a pencil and paper.
Conversely, Cocteau wrote "Film will only become an art when its materials are as inexpensive as pencil and paper." Cameras: pretty cheap. Things to point them at: haven't changed much.
If you're using this tech to replace pencil and paper, it's a hard sell. If you're using it to replace Hollywood, it's a steal.
You could also draw in the sand with a stick or piss in the snow. I'm pretty sure the point is it doesn't take advanced technology to make art.
Yeah it didn't take computers or anything to make art. More about the artists than the method right?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bv9Tb81yRgs
When you figure a way out to make digital art with out any advanced tech I would be very impressed. Pretty sure you need a computer to make digital art and computers are pretty damn advanced tech.
Nothing about the original post said anything about digital art, they just referred to art in general.
Oh yeah, I forgot everyone is born with inmate talent, time and privilege.
To be blunt, I think the powers behind project 2025 do believe the common man has inmate talent #modernamericanslavery
… but I suspect you meant "innate" talent
I forgot every artist had all of those things in spades
“innate talent” is a pervasive idea that undercuts years of work and practice. art is HARD and most people just don’t find the doing part to be fulfilling.
everyone wants to make a masterpiece, but no one is born with some kinda artist-gene that gives them the ability to do so as if by magic. outside of savants at least, but that’s a whole other thing lmao
Yes, talent is oversold and used as an excuse to often HOWEVER there ARE differences in people's skill level and rate of learning. Especially if learning disabilities are involved.
I really really wanna draw regularly. And i practice regularly have for years. Ive gotten much better than couple years ago me but overall my art still sucks (others confirm not just the usual artist hates own work) and it's mainly because i have a learning disability that affects my spacial reasoning and ability to visualize shapes.
This may come as a surprise to some people but that makes drawing very difficult, i can't get proportions correct and I struggle to find shapes. My best drawings are ones that i practically traced the initial outline to get the shapes. AI generated art absolutely makes getting an idea out of my head more accessible. And i can then trace the outline of the ai art and draw the rest myself.
I know people hate it but just blindly saying "anyone can draw just do it bro" is basically just as worthless of an argument that ignores reality
I'm an artist with aphantasia. You just might need to learn from someone that thinks like you do, or try different styles of art. There are so many disabled artists making cool stuff, and a learning disability is a barrier, but it can be overcome. I cannot see images in my head whatsoever. No mental picture, no visual memory. I make art just fine, it just took me a little longer to learn what works for me. The important part is that I had a desire to learn and overcome my difficulties, and didn't let them stop me from trying. Tracing AI art will not teach you the theory or techniques you could learn from another artist, and those are what you need to improve.
this too, it’s a lot like singing in that way. anyone can train their vocal control, but some folks just will have a much harder time with it for all sorts of reasons they can’t control. both sides of that “only some people can do it/anyone can do it” coin can be damaging for their own reasons.
i think it’s really important to talk about these things in a frank way, thank you for contributing to the discussion ^^
(Unavailable at source)
Source (Bluesky)
I know what I want to draw, but there's something missing between that idea and the paper. I can imagine what I want it to look like, in a way, but only as a vague reification of a concept, not as something made of lines and colors, and it's useless for trying to get it down on paper. I inevitably end up with something so far from my original idea that it's massively discouraging.
I expect that I'd develop a better eye for this sort of thing if I was to practice it for years, but it's very difficult to feel motivated to do that when you can't produce anything remotely like what you were going for.
There are a million free courses to guide your learning and teach you about things like forms and perspective to capture what you want. Unless you have 0 free time whatsoever, anyone, and I do mean anyone, can make art.
If you have people that talk like this around you as an artist I think you need to find different people to be around that is the real take away here.
Also, I have genuinely never in my 29 years of life heard people say anything like this. So this post can kind of fuck off.
"Never happened to me, must not be real."
Look at the comment they are replying to.
wrong, you're just too much of a coward to make shitty art and say it's yours. it's a hurdle that all of us had to get over